Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/
Jun 9, 2014 at 18:04 vote accept Xavier Hubbard Anderson
Jun 9, 2014 at 18:04 vote accept Xavier Hubbard Anderson
Jun 9, 2014 at 18:04
Jun 6, 2014 at 1:09 comment added Xavier Hubbard Anderson I think the notes I read were correct and I just misunderstood them. So what I understand is that the Boltzmann relation idea is only used to find a potential due to doping when it is actually part of a PN junction. The reference voltage we used was ground and the ground reference concentration was the intrinsic concentration of the material. Is that correct?
Jun 5, 2014 at 22:58 comment added Alfred Centauri @XavierHubbardAnderson, a doped semiconductor, whether n-type or p-type, should not have a built-in potential. Where did you read that? Do you have a link?
Jun 5, 2014 at 22:50 comment added Xavier Hubbard Anderson And to follow up on the last point, we were shown a graph of the potentials for a PN-Junction with metal contacts in my microelectronics class. It said the contact potential was 0 on both sides meaning there was a near instantaneous drop between the semi-conductor and metal contact point. Doesn't that imply a "delta" or infinite electric field somewhere at the contact points?
Jun 5, 2014 at 22:47 comment added Xavier Hubbard Anderson -Why ISN'T it the same as saying that? There is a potential difference between them, yet the universe views them as the same from outside the substance. -I don't mean in the PN junction, unless i've misunderstood what that equation tells us, which I've been thinking might be the case. I meant a single doped bit of semi-conductor. It doesn't make sense to me that it has a potential, so I suppose it doesn't.
Jun 5, 2014 at 22:24 history edited Alfred Centauri CC BY-SA 3.0
added 96 characters in body
Jun 5, 2014 at 22:19 history answered Alfred Centauri CC BY-SA 3.0